Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

Here we go again. A new peak of "femicide emergencies" is overwhelming the newspapers, and as usual all those who write to us "deep analysis" in reality are characters who deserve to be sent back to elementary school, to review the primitive concepts of logic and mathematics.

The feminicide disaster is a disaster whose repetition is the consequence of two things:

  • Toxic masculinity.
  • Toxic femininity, also called "intersectionist feminism".

Let's see how the phenomenon is perpetuated, simply taking care to always do the most useless thing. Suppose, for example, to face any other criminal phenomenon using the same logic.

To make the error clear, let's say we want to fight the phenomenon of armed robbery with the same method.

First of all, we will see that the robbers are normally poor, or at least not very wealthy. Maybe in economic difficulties, and therefore fall into the "poor" category.

Once it is established that a robbery is an act of a poor person against a wealthy person in the vast majority of cases, we have a problem of poor people who obviously have a "toxic poverty". It means that instead of being poor but honest, they are poor and criminal.

At this point, the problem of "toxic poverty" must be solved. And what is the solution? Obviously, change the culture of the poor and re-educate them. In short, we need to teach the poor that it is not right to rob the richest people. It is a cultural issue.

Does the procedure seem crazy to you? Here, read here:

Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

In short, according to Michela "Zweistein" Marzano, the problem is that it is not clear to everyone (males, of course) that "killing woman = ugly". And here we return to the speech I was talking about above: we have decided that, since the robbers are mostly poorer than the victims, everything lies in a better education to private property. If we educated all the poor about the fact that the Private Property is inviolable, and that the owner of something has the right to dispose of it, then there would be no more robberies.

The funny thing is that if I take off "femicide" and I put <crime to your pleasure>, the procedure shows itself IMMEDIATELY in its obvious stupidity. The process of the toxic feminist is:

  • Let us examine (wrongly) the numbers of a crime.
  • Let's find out which generic category the criminals belong to.
  • Once the category is blamed, we decide on a vast re-education campaign.

If we go back to the example of robbery faced in the same way, and apply this method, we end up seeing why these logics (applied in the 70s and early 80s, and never successfully) will fail.

In our example, once we have noticed how the robbers are almost always "poor", pointing out the category of the poor will put them all against us. First of all because we are throwing ourselves into people who have nothing to do with it, but also because we are invading the last remaining space, namely dignity. Secondly because we are proposing to enter into EVERY space of theirs (and there are only a few left), "correcting" the language to the point of ridicule, rewriting their identity and defining their imagery.

Of course, I will be told that a lot of "legality campaigns" have been done before now. And we know how well they worked. I mean, they failed.

Likewise, if we put things like "male education", all we will get will be castling. Which has already happened. Secondly, this way of proceeding requires that someone, an educating authority, enter into EVERY masculine space to have his say, draw red lines and decide everything, from erotic fantasies to language. A full-scale invasion.

The correct approach would be to seek, instead of the name of a class of culprits, the dangerous context. How come I say it?

The first small research of this type in Italy was carried out by Arcilesbica Roma in 2011 on a sample of 102 homosexual women in Lazio: in more than one case out of five (20.6 percent) the interviewee admitted to being afraid of return home of your partner. In the case of violence, 70.6 percent of the women interviewed said they would ask for help mainly from friends (29.4 percent) and associations (14.7 percent). The percentage of women who have not been able to indicate any subject to turn to is 32.4 percent; 27 women out of 102 replied that they would not ask for help; 76.5 percent of them indicated no reason to justify this lack of request; 11.8 percent instead indicated confidentiality, 5.9 percent humiliation and hardship.

Domestic violence is not a question of a relationship between the sexes. And let's be clear, it's not a completely Italian situation:

If you search around a little bit, you will soon discover that gay couples also have "some problems" of domestic violence, and if you only think of gay men, it also exists in the world of lesbians.

The problem therefore does not lie in "what gender is guilty", but in "what kind of couple has these problems".

There is no toxic masculinity. There is a toxic couple.

Otherwise, gay marriages would be immune from the phenomenon, and there would be no domestic violence, violence and / or abuse between women. Which is not.

Now, what happens using a wrong approach? What happened in the '70s happens, when someone had made up his mind (in New York) that it was enough to send poor Africans to school to remove them from crime. The result was a disaster that Giuliani had to remedy with the doctrine of zero tolerance. (in the end the crime was correlated with the percentage of unwanted children and single mothers, but it is a funny speech). But neither did the conditions of the Negroes, who saw government officials enter into each of their spaces and correct their slang, improve police language, rewrite their identity.

Even now, the intersectionist feminists are not asking themselves what the context is, they are proceeding with the usual identity politics, and consequently the phenomenon is accentuated.

The phenomenon of crime in the Bronx went on until a more sensible policy of sex education destroyed the origin of the crime, that is, it gave the poorest women the possibility of not finding divorced single mothers at 19, for then find themselves growing babies on babies in conditions of poverty. That was the context of the crime, and to understand that they were the niggers or the poor, and trying to re-educate them, was of no use.

Likewise, we know very well what the context in which the whole problem arises and takes place: a concept of couple and family that is no longer adequate.

If you look closely at the data on abuses against women, resulting in murder or not, you almost always find that the context is almost always a family / divorce characterized by the institution of marriage, civil or religious. Only a small minority relates to cohabitation:

Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

Now, to continue to look for the culprit of feminicides in a "toxic masculinity" instead of admitting that the "family institution is having some problems", I know of guilty blindness.

Because the statistics are. And the culprit is clear:

Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

We do not have a problem of "toxic masculinity", but of "toxic familiarity", in the sense that it is obviously the family. And even if there was a toxic masculinity, the context where it becomes really dangerous is the family. Moreover, the fact that abuse and violence also occur in lesbian couples should have answered the question.

Moreover, the concept of family has changed very little, just as the inherent legislation has changed very little, (thank the Vatican for this), in the face of a drastic change in social conditions.

Only a century ago, a "family" was a multigenerational clan that included, often in a single farmhouse / farm / country house, a couple of in-laws, its male descendants with their daughter-in-law, and a forest of grandchildren.
With the industrial revolution the current society is born, with its modern idea of ​​a couple, where "family" is simply a couple that lives together.

It is quite possible that the idea of ​​family as an economic entity, the so-called family-company, where by now the sentimental relationships are exhausted but the economic reasons of the union remain, is the toxic place where violence develops. And judging by the data, it's entirely plausible.

In particular, something quite strange stands out:

Still feminicidal. Eh, of course.

One would say, that is, that the Italian family has a specific problem: the couple does not know how to manage their children. And this seems to have a pretty high correlation with the number of feminicides.

There is no problem of "toxic masculinity": all you can see from the data (you can read as many as you want) is that in hundreds of couples motherhood causes violent tensions.

If you really wanted to attack the problem, that is, the so-called "incident area" is already defined. Femicide is a problem of married couples in the vast majority of cases, and especially a problem of couples with children.

And all the speeches like "we educate the male" know a lot about a comfortable operation to cleanse the conscience.

Apparently, what is urgent is:

  • Reform the "toxic family", eliminating the factors of tension. We are talking about 77% prevalence. It can't be a case.
  • Reforming the institution of maternity / paternity, since it is 67.2%, and cannot happen by pure chance. Here there is a clear prevalence.

And therefore, perhaps we should go in search of a concept of "toxic familiarity"? (this research will never take place: this would imply a sharing of the responsibilities and the faults that the female world is not yet culturally capable of facing).

I'll throw it there, eh. I know that nothing changes.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.